March 14, 2024
Yesterday was Pi Day (3.14), so please enjoy the mathematical humor generously provided by Table Team member Julien Corven (Math) and have fun spotting more Pi-Day puns below! In honor of 3.14, CAT members prepared pie and other baked goods, along with plenty of fresh, hot coffee throughout the day. Special thanks to all those who provided these refreshments and made colorful posters informing everyone that we were bargaining for a great first contract, our “fair slice of the pie.”
We had a full session from 9am-4pm, with much discussion between our lead spokesperson, Ashley Farmer (CJS), and ISU admin’s representative, Atty. Mark Bennett (Laner Muchin). Kudos to Ashley for framing the discussions and demanding the attorney respect our member’s time for the whole 7 hours, giving pragmatic answers to questions, and consistently asking to sign agreements right to the end of the day! They may think we sound like a broken record, but UFISU commands respect!
Ashley opened bargaining today by presenting a homemade gluten-free, vegan pie to the administration’s table team. The piece that was cut out already represented 6% of ISU’s net position, with the note “Happy Pi Day! The small slice that is missing represents the total amount we are asking for in our proposal”.
We moved on to valuable testimonials from the Mennonite team (including Sheryl H and Theresa A-M), as well as one from Carrie Anna C. from Special Education, that noted aggressive and humiliating tactics used by administrators against bargaining members to get their way despite our members wanting to say ‘no.’ The testimonials struck a chord with bargaining members. In our survey to bargaining members, many members mentioned items related to workplace bullying and concern about retaliation as a prevalent issue across campus. As a member noted, when workplace bullying becomes endemic “this job is no longer a source of joy - it has become just a paycheck.“
We began where we left off from our last session, less than halfway through our Articles, but with the motivation to get through all of the Administration's questions as quickly as possible so they could get our team a counter-proposals. Bennett started the day using the same stall tactics as the last meeting by asking questions our team considered not in good faith and relying on our team to do the administration's job: of explaining ISU policies that already exist, who would be involved, what if we (ISU) were sued, and how this would play out in arbitration. But rather than going around in circles on process issues and hypotheticals that aren’t reflective of bargaining fairly, after a keen sidebar request from Lead Spokesperson Ashley, we were able to cut straight through the diameter to the heart of substantive issues. The rest of the day did not go off on any tangents, and felt productive, with substantive discussion on proposals. We also noted that there were multiple comments about the clarity of the contract today. Bennett apologized for the last meeting’s approach, and finally noted that the Union’s proposal is clear, and he is continuing to understand the intentions behind the proposals.
After finishing a discussion on Scheduling, we had powerful testimony from international faculty member Xiaoying Z. on how ISU manages faculty immigration processes. The process is slow and complex, with limited guidance from HR, and is typically referred to outside lawyers. While many other institutions pay all costs associated with visas and residency, ISU makes faculty pay many of these fees out of pocket. Discussion during the break noted “Doesn’t ISU have a vested interest in keeping international faculty?” Xiaoying stated “I hope we can make changes so people in the future don’t have to experience what I went through”. Bennett asked who covered all the various fees Xiaoying endured in the immigration process, and she replied it was all ‘out of pocket’ much to the surprise of a number of administrators whose eyebrows raised and jaws slightly dropped.
Moving into discussions on salary after breezing through a number of proposals, Bennett attempted to verify that he understood our calculations, but (admitting he wasn't a math person), relied heavily on our team to check his math so he could be clear about our intent, and our cost-out. It was noted by a member that Bennett strategically started by using Distinguished Professors as an example in calculating salary raises that would be reflected by our proposal, rather than that of an Assistant Professor that makes much less. This enabled Bennett to note that a DP may receive a 50% raise, which Ashley contextualized with the very few number of faculty that hold this position, and the one used as an example was the lowest-paid DP. Members stated that Bennett specifically using first the highest rank of faculty as the example felt like a covert power play. Further discussions on salary noted to Bennett that we are among the lowest paid in our sector, when considered against comparators in IL and outside the state, AAUP, and national averages. We acknowledged that many factors go into this. We developed our numbers for salary floors, across the board raises, promotional adjustments, longevity payments, merit raises, compression and equity, and overloads as the minimum to be fair and equitably compensated. In this process, we asked our members “what would it take for us to be at the average of ISU comparators over time?”
Although Bennett would not agree to cosine any TA’s today, even on posting the finalized Agreement online (which is commonplace and uncontroversial language), we are excited that we are on an arc towards a fair contract.
Happy Pi Day! Plan to attend future bargaining sessions! We deserve counter proposals, and your presence will help us pressure them into moving forward. Talk to your colleagues, wear green on Thursdays, and come support us in the room during bargaining!